HOLLISTER FILES A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Loren · **Joined:** Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:20 pm **Posts:** 3891

According to WND, the Hollister case has also had a petition for cert filed. I find it slightly funny that the WND article *about* the Hollister case is significantly longer than the Per Curiam decision that's actually being appealed.

Here is the Supreme Court's docket file, showing the petition filed on November 22.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23525

Thanks for the find. I see nothing wrong with inserting the docket entry itself, as we have previously, so I will. :lol:

Having seen Mr. Hemenway's previous writings, it would be interesting to see the cert and most interesting to see Mr. Hollister's Appendix... Volumes I, II, and III. WTF? :shock:

Quote:

No. 10-678
Title:
Gregory S. Hollister, Petitioner
v.
Barry Soetoro, et al.
Docketed: November 23, 2010
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Case Nos.: (09-5080)
Decision Date: March 22, 2010
Rehearing Denied: August 23, 2010

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 22 2010 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 23, 2010)
Nov 22 2010 Appendix of Gregory S. Hollister filed. (Volumes I, II, III)

~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:
John David Hemenway 4816 Rodman Street, NW (202) 244-4819
Washington, DC 20016
johndhemenway@comcast.net
Party name: Gregory S. Hollister
Attorneys for Respondents:
Neal Kumar Katyal Acting Solicitor General (202) 514-2217
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530-0001
SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ
Party name: Barry Soetoro, et al.

Foggy · **Posted:** Sat Nov 27, 2010 10:30 am

Once again, I have to wonder ... is Col. Hollister aware that his case is now pending in the Supreme Court?

Birfer attorneys have a wonderful habit of using "plaintiffs" instead of "clients" ...

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23525

According to the WND article these are the questions presented by Hemenway's petition for cert.

Quote:

The questions suggested by the petition are weighty:

* "Did the district court examine the complaint, as required by the decisions of this and every other federal court, to see if it alleged facts to support its claims?"

* "By refusing to consider the issue of defendant Obama not being a 'natural born citizen' as set out in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution, did the district court violate its obligations to consider the issues raised by the complaint?"

* "In … relying on extrajudicial criteria such as an assertion that 'the issue of the president's citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered and otherwise massaged by America's vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama's two-year-campaign for the presidency' combined with an attack on petitioner … did the district court not engage in such obvious political bias and upon extrajudicial factors as to render its opinion void?"

* "Did the … bias engaged in lead to a decision which ignored the law as set out above and as a result place the respondent-defendant Obama above that law and the rule of law in this country generally and threaten the constitutional basis and very existence of our rule of law?"

* "Did the courts below not completely ignore the decisions of this court and the clear language of Rule 15 of the federal Rules of Civil Procedure concerning amendments so as to compound its biased elevation of the defendant Obama above the rule of constitutional law?"

I think we all know the answer to those "questions."

The article is full of the usual birther blather, lies, and misinformation spread about the case initially, including the so-called reason for tossing the case...

Quote:

While the district judge dismissed the case because it had been "twittered," the appeals court simply adopted his reasoning, but wouldn't even allow its opinion affirming the decision to be published, the petition explains.

Of course, we all know that was not the reason the case was tossed, but since the petition was filed birfistan will now be repeating that meme over and over.

Fun times. $\:D/$

Reality Check · **Posted:** Sat Nov 27, 2010 10:33 am

Foggy wrote:

Once again, I have to wonder ... is Col. Hollister aware that his case is now pending in the Supreme Court?

Birfer attorneys have a wonderful habit of using "plaintiffs" instead of "clients" ...

We could always ask Daughter-in-law "Ducky".

mimi · **Posted:** Sat Nov 27, 2010 10:35 am

I like the WND Headline on that one:

Supremes challenged to put Constitution above Twitter
Case questioning eligibility says facts don't support Obama story

Foggy · **Posted:** Sat Nov 27, 2010 11:06 am

That's odd. I seem to recall an unusual legal theory in the actual case ... called "interpleader".

Do any of the questions presented involve the question whether interpleader was an appropriate cause of action for removing a usurperin' mofo? Of course not.

In fact, that WND article contains 1,698 words (copy and paste into OpenOffice, check properties) but not one of them is "interpleader".

I bet the Supremes will find the word "interpleader" somewhere in the case, tho ...

Butterfly Bilderberg · **Posted:** Sat Nov 27, 2010 11:06 am

After the crushing blow they will receive on Monday, more reason for birthers to hold out hope! I've asked the Leghorn and Greenie to open a topic on "Birther Case Docket," but for now ...

Quote:

No. 10-678

Title:

Gregory S. Hollister, Petitioner

v.

Barry Soetoro, et al.

Docketed: November 23, 2010
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Case Nos.: (09-5080)
Decision Date: March 22, 2010
Rehearing Denied: August 23, 2010

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 22 2010 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 23, 2010)
Nov 22 2010 Appendix of Gregory S. Hollister filed. (Volumes I, II, III)

~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:

John David Hemenway 4816 Rodman Street, NW (202) 244-4819
Washington, DC 20016
johndhemenway@comcast.net

Party name: Gregory S. Hollister

Attorneys for Respondents:

Neal Kumar Katyal Acting Solicitor General (202) 514-2217
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530-0001
SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ

Party name: Barry Soetoro, et al.

Links to the decisions of the courts below

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia

United States District Court for the District of Columbia (Robertson, J.) ("Mr. Hollister is apparently Mr. Berg’s fallback brainstorm, essentially a straw plaintiff, one who could tee Mr. Berg’s native-born issue up for decision on a new theory: If some “value” could be assigned to the “duties” the plaintiff thinks he might someday be called upon to fulfill under the Commander-in-Chief, then those “duties” could be deposited in the registry of this Court as the res whose distribution is to be decided by a suit in interpleader!")

Loren · **Joined:** Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:20 pm **Posts:** 3891

Foggy wrote:

That's odd. I seem to recall an unusual legal theory in the actual case ... called "interpleader".

Do any of the questions presented involve the question whether interpleader was an appropriate cause of action for removing a usurperin' mofo? Of course not.

In fact, that WND article contains 1,698 words (copy and paste into OpenOffice, check properties) but not one of them is "interpleader".

I bet the Supremes will find the word "interpleader" somewhere in the case, tho ...

It's been ages since I gave it any attention or thought, but wasn't the interpleader portion of the case Berg's attempt to join it? As in, Hollister (represented by Hemenway, but with Berg really pulling the strings) files suit against Obama, and then Berg files for interpleader to add himself as a co-plaintiff.

The interpleader wasn't a cause of action itself, just another way Berg tried to structure his litigation. And wasn't Hollister the case where Berg avoided sanctions only because he wasn't technically party to the case when it was dismissed?

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23525

Jack Ryan's Collection - Hollister v Soetoro

I'm not certain all documents, especially from the lower-court case are available there, but if not, let me know what's missing that you want and I'll add it this afternoon after my deposition is completed.

bob · **Posted:** Sat Nov 27, 2010 12:11 pm

Loren wrote:

It's been ages since I gave it any attention or thought, but wasn't the interpleader portion of the case Berg's attempt to join it?

Hollister alleged he had a duty to the president, but didn't know who was legally the president, so his interpleader named Obama and Biden.

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Sat Nov 27, 2010 12:11 pm

This was Hemenway's attempt to use "interpleader" as a mechanism to challenge President Obama's eligibility. He was proposing to deposit Hollister's possible future militsary service into the court registry and have the court determine whether President Obama, as CiC, could spend it.

Needless to say, the district court found the attempt preposterous and frivolous. The district court wanted to sanction the true father of this bastardized legal action, Phil Berg, but he decided (wrongly most of us think) he couldn't since Hemenway was the dupe who signed the papers.

Berg demonstrated the counter-corollary to the aphorism that success has many fathers, but failure is a bastard, when he sought credit for the legal action in the court of appeals. His attempts to intervene and hijack the appeal came to naught. But his shenanigans provided a peek at some of the internecine battles going on in Birfoonistan -- a collection of idjits desperate for attention and adulation among their IQ-deprived flock.

From the questions presented it doesn't appear that the issue on which the district court and the court of appeals decided is being offered up for decision. This is death knell to any request for discretionary review. I wonder if Dogbite is on the brief.

bob · **Posted:** Sat Nov 27, 2010 12:22 pm

Butterfly Bilderberg wrote:

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in before you can view hidden messages

Foggy · **Posted:** Sat Nov 27, 2010 12:43 pm

Loren wrote:

As in, Hollister (represented by Hemenway, but with Berg really pulling the strings) files suit against Obama, and then Berg files for interpleader to add himself as a co-plaintiff.

Nope. Berg was always the lead counsel, Hemenway his sponsor, Hollister the plaintiff.

bob wrote:

Hollister alleged he had a duty to the president, but didn't know who was legally the president, so his interpleader named Obama and Biden.

Yes, he said that Hollister's theoretical duty to serve in the military again was the res.

Then he pretended that Obama and Biden had "competing claims" to the res. #-o

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

The district court wanted to sanction the true father of this bastardized legal action, Phil Berg, but he decided (wrongly most of us think) he couldn't since Hemenway was the dupe who signed the papers.

And because he never did admit Phil pro hac vice.

We had a ton of fun with that one, back in the day. The judge invited Berg to appear and make his case for being allowed to appear pro hac vice.

So I started "Why won't Phil schedule the pro hac vice hearing?" and we ragged Phil's minions over at the ObamaCrimes forum for weeks over it ...

Edit: Scribd has the original complaint in Hollister v. Soetoro

Butterfly Bilderberg · **Posted:** Sat Nov 27, 2010 8:40 pm

bob wrote:

Butterfly Bilderberg wrote:

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in before you can view hidden messages

Thanks, Bob. Corrected it.

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Sat Nov 27, 2010 11:54 pm

So will Berg file a friend of the court brief in support of certiorari?

I would urge him to do so, and to ask the court to substitute counsel upon the grant. That way Berg can get full credit for his brilliance.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23525

Docket Update...

Quote:

No. 10-678
Title:
Gregory S. Hollister, Petitioner
v.
Barry Soetoro, et al.
Docketed: November 23, 2010
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Case Nos.: (09-5080)
Decision Date: March 22, 2010
Rehearing Denied: August 23, 2010

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 22 2010 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 23, 2010)
Nov 22 2010 Appendix of Gregory S. Hollister filed. (Volumes I, II, III)
Dec 22 2010 Waiver of right of respondents Barry Soetoro, et al. to respond filed.

~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:
John David Hemenway 4816 Rodman Street, NW (202) 244-4819
Washington, DC 20016
johndhemenway@comcast.net
Party name: Gregory S. Hollister

Attorneys for Respondents:
Marc Erik Elias Perkins Coie, LLP (202)-434-1609
Counsel of Record 700 Thirteenth Street, NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20005-3960
melias@perkinscoie.com
Party name: Barry Soetoro, et al.

Yep, another meeeeeelyon spent blocking justice. :lol:

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23525

Docket Update (and a new date for the birfer calendar)

Quote:

No. 10-678
Title:
Gregory S. Hollister, Petitioner
v.
Barry Soetoro, et al.
Docketed: November 23, 2010
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Case Nos.: (09-5080)
Decision Date: March 22, 2010
Rehearing Denied: August 23, 2010

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 22 2010 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 23, 2010)
Nov 22 2010 Appendix of Gregory S. Hollister filed. (Volumes I, II, III)
Dec 22 2010 Waiver of right of respondents Barry Soetoro, et al. to respond filed.
Dec 29 2010 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 14, 2011.

~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:
John David Hemenway 4816 Rodman Street, NW (202) 244-4819
Washington, DC 20016
johndhemenway@comcast.net
Party name: Gregory S. Hollister

Attorneys for Respondents:
Marc Erik Elias Perkins Coie, LLP (202)-434-1609
Counsel of Record 700 Thirteenth Street, NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20005-3960
melias@perkinscoie.com
Party name: Barry Soetoro, et al.

Orly and Hemenway both DENINED in January... fun times. $\:D/$

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Wed Dec 29, 2010 3:33 pm

Why can't SCOTUS deny the petitions but issue sanctions against these Bozos. Nothing quite says batshit crazy like some moron calling President Obama -- Barry Soetoro.

Reality Check · **Posted:** Wed Dec 29, 2010 4:14 pm

Thanks, realist. I added this to the calendar.

gentrfam · **Joined:** Wed Aug 05, 2009 4:22 pm **Posts:** 728

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

Why can't SCOTUS deny the petitions but issue sanctions against these Bozos. Nothing quite says batshit crazy like some moron calling President Obama -- Barry Soetoro.

They sometimes forbid pro se parties from filing future briefs without leave of the clerk. I imagine they save that for the really repetitive folks, though, the repeat pro se prisoners, for example. I think the court has to wade through a boatload of shit, so it would take something pretty extraordinary to trigger sanctions.

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9326

gentrfam wrote:

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

Why can't SCOTUS deny the petitions but issue sanctions against these Bozos. Nothing quite says batshit crazy like some moron calling President Obama -- Barry Soetoro.

They sometimes forbid pro se parties from filing future briefs without leave of the clerk. I imagine they save that for the really repetitive folks, though, the repeat pro se prisoners, for example. I think the court has to wade through a boatload of shit, so it would take something pretty extraordinary to trigger sanctions.

Case in point, though the sanction differed somewhat.

Reality Check · **Posted:** Wed Dec 29, 2010 5:55 pm

The Court needs to do what they did in SCHNELLER, JAMES D. V. CORTES Let's hope we see this same wording when they deny Orly's petition on January 10.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23525

Update to Docket...

Quote:

No. 10-678
Title:
Gregory S. Hollister, Petitioner
v.
Barry Soetoro, et al.
Docketed: November 23, 2010
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Case Nos.: (09-5080)
Decision Date: March 22, 2010
Rehearing Denied: August 23, 2010

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 22 2010 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 23, 2010)
Nov 22 2010 Appendix of Gregory S. Hollister filed. (Volumes I, II, III)
Dec 22 2010 Waiver of right of respondents Barry Soetoro, et al. to respond filed.
Dec 29 2010 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 14, 2011.
Dec 30 2010 Request for recusal received from petitioner.

~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:
John David Hemenway 4816 Rodman Street, NW (202) 244-4819
Washington, DC 20016
johndhemenway@comcast.net
Party name: Gregory S. Hollister

Attorneys for Respondents:
Marc Erik Elias Perkins Coie, LLP (202)-434-1609
Counsel of Record 700 Thirteenth Street, NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20005-3960
melias@perkinscoie.com
Party name: Barry Soetoro, et al.

Nothing to show who Hemenway is asking to be recused... perhaps the entire Supreme Court. :-k

I can't think of any reason any Justice should recuse themselves in this case. Anyone?

At least this time he moved for recusal prior to a hearing or adjudication rather than after. :lol:

Reality Check · **Posted:** Thu Dec 30, 2010 6:16 pm

He probably wants Justices Kagan and Sotomayor to recuse themselves because they were appointed by the Soetoro guy. [-X

Not that it matters.

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

HOLLISTER FILES A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Who is online